Will Gays Destroy the 'Sanctity' of Marriage?

One of this week's hottest topics (behind the ACC tournament, Jim Tressel and of course Charlie Sheen) has been homosexual marriage.  A Facebook chain post has appeared on my wall more than once and I had to weigh in before people stopped caring again.  Here is the post:

"So let me get this straight...Kelsey Grammer can end a 15 year marriage over the phone; Larry King can be on divorce #9; Britney Spears had a 55-hour marriage; Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with EVERYONE... Yet, the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really! Re-post to your page if you are proud to support equal rights"

I'm not here to comment on the 'who-cares'iness of all these celebrities messing around, because it's not important to the argument.  It is relevant however to note these more public marriage issues because the same thing certainly happens in out-of-the-limelight society.  The very same people who will stand up against equal marriage rights for homosexuals are blind to their own marital shortcomings, hiding behind lies and heuristically assumed opinions about their lives.

If anyone in our society lives in a glass house, it's the homosexual community.  They cannot be legally married in most states, and are therefore not allowed some of the rights afforded heterosexual couples.  These include:

- Joint parenting;
- Joint adoption;
- Joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
- Status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
- Joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
- Dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
- Immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
- Inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
- Joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
- Inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
- Benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
- Spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
- Veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
- Joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
- Wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
- Bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
- Decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
- Crime victims' recovery benefits;
- Loss of consortium tort benefits;
- Domestic violence protection orders;
- Judicial protections and evidentiary immunity                                                  ReligiousTolerance.org

It is important to note that there is also no legal privacy between homosexual partners, forcing them in court to retell anything said between them in private, something legally married couples are not legally obligated to do.

I am reluctant to assert that anyone can see that there is really no reason homosexual couples shouldn't have rights to marriage, because if that were true, homosexuals would have rights to marriage.  I'm also reluctant to blame a particular group or demographic for fighting against homosexual rights; if you're reading this you can make your own decision.

Across history we have seen that really just one group of people resists granting rights to the oppressed in America.  Being a relatively young country we essentially have two major movements, with several smaller ones.  However I predict we are not only in the midst of one, but sit on the forefront of a few more.  I don't want to bore you with my affinity for history, but it is important in this debate to at least have some understanding of how our country has dealt with granting rights to oppressed groups.

An Abolitionist rhetorical appeal

Results of daily whipping

African Americans claimed the first mass movement toward equality.  I don't mean civil rights, I mean abolition.  The hypocrisy of the system of slavery is mind-blowing, I don't have nearly enough room to talk about how wrong it all was, but I'll try in a few sentences.  Blacks were systematically lowered below the rank of human through societal ideas about them and actual laws limiting their rights based simply on the color of their skin.  They began in this country with the ability, like all indentured servants brought here in the 16th century, to work for and attain their freedom.  Within the course of one generation, however, they were stripped of property and voting rights, and eventually labeled permanent chattel.  Hundreds of thousands of Africans died on fetid boats while millions were kidnapped and trafficked from the heart of Africa to the Atlantic coast.  They spent over a century being savagely beaten by white people who called themselves humans, and who actually believed themselves to be better people.  It is important to remember that there were those, even in the South, who could see through the lies and knew that their own neighbors were committing horrendous atrocities daily.  Having no legal recourse against their neighbors limited their ability to take action, and unfortunately they didn't.  There is so much to say about the hypocrisy of Southern white slave owners, but I will just squeeze in that they went to church weekly to reaffirm the rightness of what they did, seeing no wrong in it.  Simultaneously the African Americans they left at home were teaching themselves to read the Bible and realized their plight was against God's will.  I don't think anyone with any concept of human rights can say that slavery was right, but the white slave owners at the time 'knew' it was.  

Advertisement for a suffragist's rally

Think about another movement: women's suffrage.  Until 1920, women didn't even have the right to vote.  Women had to fight for 7 decades to attain the right to vote.  Until that time all laws affecting them at all were written and approved by men only.  It was their place to stay in the home and they needed men's protection from society.  Again there was tremendous hypocrisy, as women were working in larger numbers in factory jobs.  Additionally the only thing women needed protection from was men, particularly the working class urban women who often were forced into prostitution.  A man's vote represented the opinion of his wife, so they had no reason to want the vote and certainly didn't need it.  To men, this made perfect sense and they 'knew' women couldn't and shouldn't make decisions for themselves.  

All you should really take from these historical examples is how people convinced themselves the system of slavery and the exclusion of women (and blacks, and certainly black women) from the vote were perfectly alright.  Looking back it is obvious it wasn't.  So how do we learn from history?  History allows us to look back with understanding, but even more importantly, it allows us to look forward with knowledge.  

Be the person on the front lines.  Be the one who the history books cite as those who stood by the oppressed all along.  Be the Southern farmer who didn't use slaves, or the Congressman who argued for the rights of women.  Be the person who sat in with the black students at the lunch counter, and gave rides to blacks who were boycotting the buses.  Homosexuals are an oppressed group but not for much longer, set aside even your personal beliefs about homosexuality and realize that regardless of how it comes about it is everyone's right to be married and have a family in this country.  Don't look back when they are given rights and regret ever disagreeing. 

Most importantly, don't ignore your own hypocrisies, no one is perfect, and no one can ever be perfect.  Mistakes will be made but don't look at isolated events and apply them across entire groups.  Reflect on your own experiences before you decide how someone else's experience should be.